Forming Adjectives

[Garrison]

Does anyone have any ideas on how to make a definitive rule about how to turn a verb into an adjective?
My initial assumption is: "The adjective describes what the person/thing who does the verb MUST be like because it does the verb, or what a person/thing who habitually does the verb must be like."
e.g.:
I wait, therefore I am patient.
It lasts, therefore it is durable or permanent.
It attracts, therefore it is attractive.
I forget, therefore I am forgetful.

But this doesn't account for all the definitions given by Sudre, so I would make an amendment: "If the verb necessitates a direct object, the adjective describes what the object acted on by the verb must ideally be like."

I read IT, therefore it must be legible.
I carry it, therefore it must be portable.

This usually works, but I still see problems with it.
For example:
I love you, therefore... Am I 'loving' or 'enamored', or are you 'lovable'? (Sudre says 'enamored')
I forget it, therefore... Am I 'forgetful', or is it 'forgetable'? (Sudre says 'forgetful')
I need it, therefore... Am I 'needy', or is it 'necessary'? (Sudre says 'necessary')

This kind of ambiguity is difficult to get around. Should the adjective be able to describe the subject OR the object, and be inferred from context? Do some words just always become adjectives a certain way? (This would mean that all the ambiguous cases would just have to be learned). Should there be a specific grammatical form to create an adjective for object (for example, using the word falare - can, able, may? Used, perhaps, like, "La misolredo lamîsol" - the forgetful person; "La misolredo falâre lamisol" - the forgetable person (the person able-to-be-forgotten))

So - thoughts, anyone? I'd like to remove the ambiguity from Solresol as much as we can, and this seems like a large gray spot to me.

[Dan]

I think using a grammatical form to distinguish verb-to-adjective transformations is a great idea. Inference could be a dangerous path to take, since we would have to make sure inference is always good enough. Looking at just the word "love", I am also not sure what Sudre expects us to do, either:

Miremi - Beloved, darling, dear, dearly loved
Mirefa - Tenderness, kindness, loving, tenderly, fondness, endearment
Milasi - Love, cherish, lover, enamored
Dofasolmi - Beautify, beauty, lovely, pretty, beautiful

From these entries, it seems he wants a new word for every verb-to-adjective transformation, but I think we'd quickly run out of syllable combinations going that route. I understand that the first syllable(s) of a word are meant to group words into gradually more related groups (as the first three words above are with "mi" in the first syllable, and even "re" in the second syllable), but I think adding marker words before/after a word would further reinforce the common root word. I realize this would probably remove numerous words currently defined in Solresol, but I highly doubt Sudre has every verb-to-adjective transformation covered for every verb, and as I said above, I think we'd quickly run out of syllable combinations if we continued this method.

I have more ideas regarding marker words in Solresol, but I'll make a separate post.

[Garrison]

I think those examples of 'love' are kind of an isolated incident related to the quirks of translation... I think miremi is just a general term of endearment, the way one might address one's lover; Dofasolmi I think mostly means 'beautify' and 'beautiful', and 'lovely' in the sense of, 'Oh! What a lovely house!' - which isn't really related to the idea of 'to love'. Mirefa is kind of tricky, but I really think it's trying to embody a distinct idea as well.
I don't think there are as many unnecessary words as it might seem - I think Sudre wanted all the forms of a verb/noun/adjective to be expressed by just one word.

I'm glad you're with me on maybe using specific grammatical forms - I completely agree with your statement on inference. I don't completely understand what you mean by 'marker words' - I'm thinking we need more rigorously defined grammar regarding how to form the various forms of the verb.

Here's my proposal for hard-and-fast rules (Don't mind that I'm writing very matter-of-factly, most of this is theoretical, I just don't want to always have to say, 'would be', so I'll say 'is'.)


RULE: A verb marked on the second-to-last (penultimate) syllable is an adjective describing what a person/thing who does the verb, habitually does the verb, or is good at doing the verb must be like. A noun marked on the penultimate syllable becomes an adjective meaning 'like that noun'.
(I love -> I am loving; I need -> I am needy; I help -> I am helpful; I understand -> I am understanding. Some words won't make for clean translations, but would still follow the rule. I read -> I am 'bookish,' or like someone who reads a lot or very well; I carry -> I have the qualities of someone who is good at carrying things; I remember -> I have a good memory.)

To describe the object of the verb, just use the passive verb form (http://www.ifost.org.au/~gregb/solresol ... .htm#vpass) - this is used just to simply say, "The object is [verb]ed." (Not 'able to be [verb]ed', or 'good at being [verb]ed', or 'needs to be [verb]ed' - just [verb]ed.) (This part isn't my construction; it's already been said by Gajewski.)
Dofa faremi milasol - It is loved.
Dofa faremi resolsido - It is needed; It is necessary (you see how adjectives can be built into this form, because 'necessary' means 'is needed'.)
Dofa faremi ladofa - It is read.
Dofa faremi lamisol - It is forgotten.
Dofa faremi midomi - It is attracted.

The same form is used to say 'the [verb]ed object', but faremi is marked as an adjective.
La ladosol farêmi resolsido - The necessary book (the book that is needed).
La misolredo farêmi lamisol milasi dore. - the forgotten person loves me. (So poetic )

[Begin self-doubt]
I'm starting to feel that other forms might quickly get too messy. The way I used 'falâre' as an adjective in my first post doesn't really make sense. If I want to say, "The legible book" and I say, "La ladosol falâre ladofa" (The book can [adj] to read), it certainly looks like that means 'The book that can read.' I would need the passive form of the verb, so I would need to say, "La ladosol falâre faremi ladofa," (The book can [adj] be read.) ... And if we're saying that, why not scratch it altogether and stick with the way it would normally work, which is, "La ladosol mire falare faremi ladofa," (The book that can be read)? Is it unreasonable for Solresol to not have a form that strictly means [verb]able? (Well.. Actually, it does seem a bit unreasonable).
[/End self doubt]
Suppose then that we accepted that "Falâre [verb]" always means "[verb]able"?
La ladosol falâre ladofa - the readable/legible book
La ladosol falare ladofa - the book can read

This might provide confusion in alternative methods of communication (colors, numbers - anything that omits accents), but, really, since "the readable book" is a fragment, it would always have some context that would indicate how it should be interpreted (and if not, one could always phrase things more clearly for different media).
La ladosol falâre ladofa faremi redo - the readable book is mine.
                                         - The book can read is mine... no, it must mean 'the book that can be read is mine'.

So perhaps even though 'falâre [verb]' is missing the 'to be' that marks it as passive, it could just be defined that way? Seems fairly reasonable, and certainly solves a problem. Would these rules be good to standardize?

What do you guys think in general about using the adjective formation on words like faremi or falare (and maybe also falado)? (I say 'you guys' in the hopes that 'Sisol Doresifado' or someone else will join the conversation otherwise Dan and I will either reach a stalemate or make relatively significant changes, and everyone else will just have to deal. )

[Doresifado]

Hey guys,

First off, good job on bringing Sidosi back to life and all the contributions to Solresol!

So yeah, I agree adjectives are difficult in Solresol. "Solmila" covers “memorable,” "to remember," "memory," "commemoration," etc. - not all adjectives, I know, but a ton of ideas, and I guess we have to keep in mind that Sudre’s view of Solresol was that it was meant for (or at least the focus was on) brief communication, and so he was more focused on the similarities between word groups rather than teasing out the differences.

I’m not sure how to tackle this. One thing I can say is that since Solresol already offers a way of forming the passive with the past participle using "sisi," the adjective form of a verb doesn't need to refer to the recipient of an action…so the adjective solMIla for example wouldn't (have to) mean "remembered," since that would be expressed either by "sisi solmila" or the more Gajewskian (and thus preferred by Garrison ) form "faremi solmila." Then there's the active participle created with "solsol," which is used to create the gerund: solsol solmila = “remembering.” So the focus is on the person carrying out the action of the verb.That and for four-syllable words, there’s another option with stressing the second syllable for the person who carries out an action. Not sure what to do for three-syllable words… Anyway, this relation between active and passive participles makes me think of (Modern Standard) Arabic's اسم الفاعِل and اسم المفعول.

And as an aside, I can look at this from an Esperanto perspective; Esperanto has “families” of words like Solresol (but Esperanto is highly agglutinative, so it works differently from Solresol). So you can have the verb “memori,” (to remember, recall, recollect) from which you can derive the adjective “memora”...whose meaning is not clear by itself. You might use it if you wanted to say “Memory Day” (if such a thing existed): “Memora Tago” (although you could just create the word “Memortago” too, by combining roots). But it wouldn’t mean memorable or “remembered” or “one who remembers”; those would be “memorebla,” “memorita,” and “memoranto,” respectively. My point in bringing this up is just that Solresol may very well have adjectives (or nouns or verbs for that matter) that are more abstract in nature and that may not have a direct correlation to words in English, just because...well, the languages work differently. As for the problem at hand, I think we have "remembered" and "remembering" covered, but we'd have to develop a way to say memorable - either by creating a marker as Dan proposed, by periphrastic constructions in Solresol, or by lexicalizing some word/phrase in Solresol (which is what I think Garrison was getting at with his use of "falare").

“Miremi - Beloved, darling, dear, dearly loved
Mirefa - Tenderness, kindness, loving, tenderly, fondness, endearment
Milasi - Love, cherish, lover, enamored
Dofasolmi - Beautify, beauty, lovely, pretty, beautiful”

I think those examples of 'love' are kind of an isolated incident related to the quirks of translation... I think miremi is just a general term of endearment, the way one might address one's lover; Dofasolmi I think mostly means 'beautify' and 'beautiful', and 'lovely' in the sense of, 'Oh! What a lovely house!' - which isn't really related to the idea of 'to love'. Mirefa is kind of tricky, but I really think it's trying to embody a distinct idea as well.

Yeah, Dan, don’t get too attached to the English translations of words; there’s always some wiggle room with translation, and just because words have a relationship in English, doesn’t necessarily mean they have a relationship in the original language (be it Solresol, French or whatever).

hat do you guys think in general about using the adjective formation on words like faremi or falare (and maybe also falado)? (I say 'you guys' in the hopes that 'Sisol Doresifado' or someone else will join the conversation otherwise Dan and I will either reach a stalemate or make relatively significant changes, and everyone else will just have to deal. )

Sisol? Thanks for making me feel old

[Garrison]

Thanks for joining in, Doresifado
I was going to say, "Mr. Doresifado", but opted for "Sisol" in accordance with your Solresol name... Sudre uses Sisol for "Mr." and Sila for "Ms./Mrs."... Is that what we do? Gajewski's the one who puts age difference in the words. That's an entirely different issue, I guess. Didn't mean to make you feel old though, haha.

I think, even though Sudre's idea may have been a less precise, 'casual' language, it needs to be able to express ideas with reasonable precision. And that includes some more subtle differences in adjectives and such.

I'm a converted Sudreist, by the way. I still reference Gajewski's grammar though, in the assumption that it's mostly in line with Sudre. It's more complete and easy to read, and it has examples...

Anyway - I had forgotten about sisi... but I think you're right in that we should use that and lala, the present participle, for 'remembered' and 'remembering' (I think you meant lala. Solsol is the imperative). These would then behave just like adjectives, I guess?
"La ladosol sisi ladofa" - the read book (the book that has been read).
"La misolredo sisi lamisol" - the forgotten person.
It's interesting that you can't immediately tell where the phrase is going... It could be, "La misolredo sisi lamisol refa rêsisolre" - "the person forgot his name," or it could be a whole noun phrase leading up to a verb. I guess it'd always be clear from context.
I do think the passive Gajewskian verbs still have a place - I think the idea is that when you say, "I am loved," you can leave out the sisi because it's the only interpretation available. (Also, Sudre does say certain verbs are 'auxiliary' - which would mean, I think, that such constructions are valid).

As for the problem at hand, I think we have "remembered" and "remembering" covered, but we'd have to develop a way to say memorable

That's what I was working toward realizing in my last post. I think we should reserve the standard penultimate syllable marker as describing the subject, and create a new form for "able to be [verb]ed".
I think what we should do is create a list of all our ideas and possibilities, and see if we can agree on one.

My idea was to always use "falâre [verb]." Accent falare as if it were an adjective, and let that form always mean "[verb]able."

We do have the option of intentionally neglecting that form, and always saying, for example, "La misolredo mire falare faremi solmila" - the person that can be remembered. It's a definite option, but I dislike it in general.

If we don't want either of these, though, let's create some more ideas

Solresol may very well have adjectives (or nouns or verbs for that matter) that are more abstract in nature and that may not have a direct correlation to words in English

I was noticing that too - and it comes up more when we treat the language more rigorously, saying things like, "The adjective always describes the subject." I like it, personally. I feel it makes the language take on more of its own character (in contrast to filling in the most normal, common, and related adjective, which makes it feel more like a forced translation of French or English).

P.S. Do you speak Arabic?? And could you explain your example a bit?